Local link—Neighborhood park, equestrian center, neighborhood school, local open space corridor, neighborhood commercial center, and so forth

0—No, the trail does not link to local destinations.

1—Yes, the trail links indirectly to local destinations.

2—Yes, the trail links directly to local destinations or no other route exists.

Regional link—Regional park, regional trail, regional open space, major equestrian center, place of commerce or employment concentration, high school, community college, university, and so forth

0—No, the trail does not link to regional destinations.

1—Yes, the trail links indirectly to major regional destinations (links to other trail or trails that directly connect) or; yes, links directly to minor destination.

2—Yes, the trail links directly to major regional destination, such as a potential Signature Trail or; yes, the trail is a critical link in regional trail.

Loop link

0—The trail completes no loop.

1—The trail completes a portion of existing or potential loop.

2—The trail completes a portion of more than one existing or potential loops.

Equestrian impact on adjacent land use

0—Equestrian use of the corridor infringes on privacy of adjacent property.

1—Equestrian use of the corridor has a negligible impact on adjacent land use.

2—Equestrian use of the corridor has a negligible impact on adjacent land use.

Adjacent land-use impact on equestrian experience

0—Adjacent land use creates a negative experience to the equestrian corridor user. The corridor is defined by its adjacent negative or unsafe features to the equestrian user (loud noises, shooting range, golf driving range, model airplane area, unattractive site, railway corridors, and so forth).

1—Adjacent land use has some features negative to the equestrian user, but is not defined by it; or the corridor has primarily positive features but the corridor is not the experience in itself and is rather the means to accessing primary feature.

2—Adjacent land use has some features negative to the equestrian user, but is not defined by it; or the corridor has primarily positive features but the corridor is not the experience in itself and is rather the means to accessing primary feature.

Most suitable trail type

0—A paved pathway would better serve existing or potential use of corridor.

1—There is some or moderate existing or potential use or demand by equestrians.

2—There is heavy existing or potential use or demand by equestrians.

Access/usability

0—The trail corridor has few or minimal available access points and/or the corridor is convoluted and/or the corridor itself is confusing, or the corridor connection to other corridors is confusing.

1—The corridor has limited available access points and/or some confusing aspects. 2 The

2—The corridor has numerous available access points and/or flows easily along logical corridors.

Safety

0—The corridor includes numerous hazards that create a sense of danger to horses and riders (overly-constricted corridor for shared-use and so forth).

1—The corridor has existing or potential safety problems that could be mitigated with reasonable effort.

2—The corridor is free of hazards and fosters a sense of safety and security.

Trail/traffic relationship

0—There is significant existing or potential conflict resulting from trail proximity to high-speed traffic or forced at-grade crossing without a signal.

1—There is some existing or potential conflict resulting from relative trail proximity to some traffic or at-grade crossing with signal or stop sign.

2—There is minimal existing or potential conflict (comfortable set-back from street and connections through grade-separated crossings or low risk at-grade crossings).

Land availability

0—The corridor is not currently or likely not available for use as equestrian corridor.

1—The corridor is not currently or likely not available for use as equestrian corridor.

2—The corridor is currently under public control or is otherwise legally available for public access.